U.S. lawmakers pissed about MacArthur debate

I guess that if the United States were to remove its portaits and statues of Lafayette in a ecstatic frenzy of frog-bashing, I?��d expect the French government to perhaps say something

Yes, but we’re way too classy for that. Our public officials are NOT the ones calling allied heads of states names (Canada, anyone?).

the fact remains that the statue in question stands in a Korean park, where it was erected by the Koreans with money raised by Incheon residents

True. But it is an image of an American icon. Besides, just surely as Koreans can do what they please with the statue, we Americans and our representatives can tell the Korean government what some of us feel like AND what we plan to do if it were to allow such things to occur to a highly symbolic American icon.

And by appearing to intervene in Korea?��s domestic affairs, the lawmakers might have handed to the loonies looking to due harm to Big Mac ammunition for their arguments.

I agree that our “interventions” have not been very efficacious and often produced results contrary to what we intended. Sometimes “cold silence” is better than outright opposition. Sometimes it is better to “sit it out” until the adults are back in charge.

But at some point, one has to draw a line and find a hill to die on. I personally think that the radicals over-reached on this issue and a judicious indication of American outrage can be useful in restoring some sense of sanity.

Polls, as flawed as they may be, seem to indicate that, as much as South Koreans blame American for a lot of ills, a substantial majority of them does not seem especially keen to end the alliance with the United States, until the politico-economic and security landscape surrounding “post-American” Korea is clear.

If so, I think this is a moment of advantage for a public announcement of indignation by the US in regards to a protest with which a substantial majority of Koreans likely disagree strongly.

James
aka Guns and Butter
aka The Asianist

Koreans kow-tow to North Korea. Korean congressmen were beaten up by the Chinese, yet Korea keeps silent.

Only country Korea trash freely is the US. Americans have been too nice. Enough is enough. It is time to flex some muscle and get these Commie doggies to eat s***.

Koreans respect power. All Asians do. It is time to show them some.

And, Stop KAL and Asiana Airline from flying in and out of the continental US. They may be carrying future terrorists.

Let’s see how many days Korea can last under this kind of pressure. Rho will be force to resign and pro-American president will be elected by Koreans in overwhelming majority.

Time to get Korea into shape.

U.S. lawmakers pissed about MacArthur debate

Duh.

baduk wrote:
I think the US should go a step further. Threaten Korea about boycotting Samsung and Hyundai products till Korea properly honor one of America?��s most beloved generals.

Indeed. That’d make this comedy perfect!

Yeah, those hippies would call all wars unnecessary. And, their hero is Pres. Truman who insisted that the US forces to stay out of Asia. I guess the defeat in VietNam justifies their claims.

But, you know what history is funny thing. If you change one thing in the past, then it may change other things, etc, etc.

Whatever happened up to this point made America the strongest country in the world. If MacArthur did not push, then Korean conflict may have ended with a few deaths on American soldiers and the US could have pulled out of Korea. This may have given NK chance to eat up SK just like VietCong ate up VietNam as soon as the US departed. The unified Korea could have been under China for fifty years. And, by now may be attacking Japan with missles when the US got 9/11. America had to fight Islam terrorists and the Russian/Chinese/Korean forces attacking Japan at the same time.

Who knows?

Yes, but we?��re way too classy for that.

Really? Forget about “Freedom Fries”?

On March 11, 2003, Representatives Robert W. Ney (R – Ohio) and Walter B. Jones, Jr. (R – North Carolina) declared that all references to “french fries” and “French toast” on the menus of the restaurants and snack bars run by the House of Representatives would be removed. House cafeterias were ordered to re-name french fries as “freedom fries”. This action was carried out without a congressional vote, under the authority of Congressman Ney’s position as Chairman of the Committee on House Administration, which oversees restaurant operations in the house. The simultaneous renaming of French toast to “freedom toast” attracted less attention.

It would be wise to remember that people from all walks of life can be petty.

Mr. Bevers — No, I’m not being watched by Big Brother. What I disagree with here is Congress taking a stand on what another country does with one of its own statues. If the US Congress wants to bitch about anti-Americanism, fine. But making a statement specifically about an issue like the Incheon statue strikes me as making the same mistake Koreans make when they try to involve themselves in the Japanese educational policy (or even the Yasukuni Shrine, for that matter), i.e., it comes dangerously close to intereference in the internal affairs of another state. And let’s face it — it’s not like the Congressional letter is going to change the minds of anyone looking to pull the thing down, and it could very well rub even those opposed to taking the statue down the wrong way because no one likes foreign countries butting into their internal affairs.

Marmot, you seem to know your feelings on the issue better than you thought.

Let’s be clear here. We are not talking about a statue of a Korean hero, and we are not just talking about the statue of any old American hero; we are talking about the statue of a man who led hundreds of thousands of Americans to fight for South Korean freedom. When you think about it, the US paid an awful lot for that statue, so is it really that wrong for the US congress to send a letter expressing their concern to the Korean president, who seems to be unwilling to admit MacArthur’s contribution to South Korean independence? And even though Yi Sun-shin did not do a damn thing for the US, do you think the US president would not get a letter if Americans, including politicians and historians, were protesting a statue of Yi Sun-shin and calling him a war criminal?

You are going to have to give me a little more detail if you expect me to see how this is in any way equivalent to the Korean government protesting Japanese history books. You might be able to make a case if An Jung-geun had saved Japan from invasion instead of assassinating one of her greatest statesmen.

Koreans are not going to think of this as the US butting into Korean affairs because Koreans understand that unjustly slamming a hero to both Korea and the United States is not right. In fact, I think Koreans are going to come down hard on the wackos.

I think it is obvious why these congressmen made such a statement. They were offended by certain agitators wrongfully calling an American general a “war crimminal” and by the equivocating behaviour of the current leadership in Korea regarding this and other incidents. Such a label as “war crimminal” is what one would use of certain killers from pre-war Japan, Nazi Germany, etc. Such a label would be deeply offensive to those that honor the principles that America was founded upon.

No, it is not wise to meddle in the affairs of another nations domestic issues but slander is slander.

Thanks, DDA. I frequently make the two mistakes you mentioned.

Marmot: This was delivered to me by mistake:

NOTICE TO CEASE AND DESIST

Actually, considering your views on what constitutes interference in the domestic affiars of another country, I’m surprised you haven’t voluntarily cleared out of Dodge already .

Marmot: This was delivered to me by mistake:

NOTICE TO CEASE AND DESIST

Dated: Set. 19, 2005 at Seoul

From: The Ministry of Cmmunications of the Daehan Minjok

To: THE MARMOT

We have been studying the matter of your blog, The Marmot’s Hole, for some time. As a result of prolonged, sincere and deep reflection on this matter, befitting Confusionist worthies such as ourselves, we have determined that your sponsorship of this forum is regrettable.

Your facilitation and promotion of the expression and dissemination by foreigners of information and foreigner opinions that are offensive to the true-bone sensibility of das Volk — err, our people, which has been carefully nurtured in the soil of our ancestors for 5000 years to create the pure Korean “minjok”, is intolerable.

It is inevitable therefore that we order you to close down this affront to our dignity forthwith.

Your failure to do so will result in the immediate blockage by all Korean telecommunications providers of all access to your site, even if that means completely shutting down the interoperability of Korea?��s domestic internet facilities with those of the world-wide web, so that we can go back to gazing at our navels on our own minjok intranet and placidly picking our toes in the rice paddies.

If you still persist, we shall sent you packing to the land of your wife?��s ancestors on the back of a Jeju pony, which should have no trouble finding the way to its own genetic stomping grounds without difficulty.

Yours, etc.

Actually, considering your views on what constitutes interference in the domestic affiars of another country, I?��m surprised you haven?��t voluntarily cleared out of Dodge already

Spewer — Cute, and I particularly liked the part about the Jeju pony, although Mongolians tend to get upset if you call their ponies “ponies.” That being said, I’m sure you realize the difference between the Marmot, in his capacity as a private citizen, mouthing off about Big Mac, and five members of the House Committee on International Relations — including its chair — writing a strongly-worded letter to President Roh expressing their opinion on Big Mac.

I am in agreement with Bevers on this one. It is one of the rare times where Marmot has jumped far off base – to me.

It is exactly the kind of thing you hear Koreans say when trying to defend Korea’s culture of anti-US thought when they get called up on it. “It’s none of your concern, because you are not Korean. Don’t interfere in our domestic affairs.”

What is the difference between members of Congress expressing regret and indignation over the attacks on the statue than expressing concern over hundreds of thousands of Koreans taking part in massive anti-US demonstrations in Decemeber of 2002 when they rip massive US flags to shreds? Or, how about the Bin Laden commercial where the terrorists couldn’t fly the plane into the world trade center because they didn’t have Korean technology? Or, the pro-bin laden (strike at American pride) songs downloaded all over the Pusan area?

I personally don’t care about the statue or the ripping of flags. They are symbols. What is more important is what they symbolize and what the attacks represent.

If I were in Congress, I’d express more concern about the violent protests at Pyongtaek -

But, I certainly wouldn’t tell Congress they should butt out of Korean affairs over the statue protest letter.

What I mean is, the statue is as symbolic of the current US-SK alliance as it is of the US involvment in the Korean War. In fact, this isn’t usually something I tend to say, because it focusing too much on ancient history, but technically, the US is still helping to fight the Korean War. It has never come to an end.

And with tens of thousands of US soldiers in Korea in a position they could easily be slaughtered by a sneak attack by North Korea if – say – NK ever decided it was about to collapse and would rather go for broke than open the flood gates to the outside world, and with hundreds of thousands of American servicemen slated to join into such a war if it breaks out, I think our Congress should pay attention to the levels of anti-US agitation taking place in Korea and express some kind of thought about it both to the American people and Koreans.

I think we all take the risks in Korea too lightly. We might say from time to time that US soldiers are in Korea prepared to fight and die for it — blah blah blah

I think we all take the risks in Korea too lightly. We might say from time to time that US soldiers are in Korea prepared to fight and die for it ?�� blah blah blah ?�� because blah blah blah is how we generally feel about it. War hasn?��t come for 50 years, so we almost take it for granted it will never come as much as Koreans do.

Whether it comes or not, those soldiers are still here to fight and die for Korea – whether they like it or not.

Americans have a HUGE stake in what goes on in Korea.

…[W]e definately (sic) have a national interest in [the US-Korea alliance].

And what the hell for?

If American soldiers were not stationed here in Korea, would it still be safe to say that Americans have a huge (excuse me, HUGE) stake in what goes on in Korea? Or, put another way, in the autumn of 2005 is there any other rationale for the so-called “alliance” (read: protectorate) other than “It is so, because it has always been so”? What other common national interests and values are shared between the United States and Korea?

Let’s see: Both are “free market” economies, except that Korea has free access to American markets while American companies’ access to Korean markets remains highly restricted. Both are democracies, except that Korea’s democratic polity seems to revel in anti-American outbursts and thinly-veiled contempt for the Yankee.

Is it shared language? No. Shared culture? No. A common world view and sense of shared destiny? Let’s see — nope, not really, in fact a savvy observer would note that a majority of Koreans consider it inevitable and in fact essential to turn away from the haughty Yank. Their issue is one of timing. When is it best for Korea to finally spit in the eye of the United States?

The truth is, Korea is decidedly not a friend of America. America is Korea’s friend, but for no good reason — just “because”. Unfortunately, Koreans, being an isolated and friendless people otherwise, don’t really have the ability to recognize what state-to-state friendship looks like.

(A challenge: Name one other “friend” Korea has, from among the states whose professions of friendship could actually translate to action to help the putative friend. Guatemala doesn’t count. Is France Korea’s friend? Do the Germans care about Korea? If North Korea came south, would Russia be here to aid Seoul? In a disaster, is Britain going to mobilize its resources to aid Korea?)

In sum, the “alliance” is bunk. America is not protecting a friend, it’s merely subsidizing a wealthy, ungracious freeloader — and one which has the gall to look down on America for the privilege. And doing so simply because 60 years ago Japan was defeated and Korea was in Japan’s junk locker.

Australia, Britain and Canada, these are America’s relations and closest friends. Germany and Japan, also friends. We have a bond with France thanks to Lafayette and it would be hard to imagine the United States ever being able to walk away from France. And thanks to language and legal systems I can see India becoming a reliable friend and partner in the future.

But Korea? If not for the “alliance” Korea would be in the category of commercially-important states with which the United States maintains trading relationships, but about which the American public has not much interest at all. Like Brazil, or Argentina, maybe Portugal (except Portugal is in NATO). South Africa. Kazakstan maybe.

Except that without the “alliance” there would be some impetus for Congress to consider exactly why it is that Korea gets the benefit of a free trade agreement with the United States (through America’s open market policies) while keeping Korea’s own markets nearly hermetically sealed against American products…

#18

In fact we are too ?��classy?�? for pettiness here in the USA, pal. The Congressional ?��name change?�? was pretty much laughed by most people as being exceptionally.

Don’t condescend to me with your pal, pal. The congressional committee name change, while largely mocked by the rest of the U.S. population, still occurred. Showing that there are members of our population, high-ranking members even, which have less control over their emotions than children. An example that clearly contradicts #1′s comment that:

Yes, but we?��re way too classy for that. Our public officials are NOT the ones calling allied heads of states names (Canada, anyone?).

I’m sure with enough research one could even find examples of government representatives calling allied heads of state names. I can guarantee without very much effort at all that one can find name calling going on between both parties working for the same government, why not allies supposedly working for the same cause? No matter how you look at it, that kind of behavior is childish and petty. I am not implying that it is a trait expressly inherent in Americans or American government, but that it is a common thread present among human beings everywhere and pretending to have the moral high ground on “classy behavior” is a joke. I understand that one Korean national assembly member spouting nonsense about ethnic purity doesn?��t represent Korea as a whole just as I understand that one American congressman with a vendetta against the French doesn?��t represent America. But you pretending that neither of them exist just isn’t practical or objective.

Nobody at any drive-in or restaurant anywhere in ?��Averagetown?�? USA is calling them ?��freedom fries?�? ?�� it?��s still French fries.

Of course the name of french fries around the country didn’t change. That wasn’t the scope of the action.

..declared that all references to ?��french fries?�? and ?��French toast?�? on the menus of the restaurants and snack bars run by the House of Representatives would be removed. House cafeterias were ordered to re-name french fries as ?��freedom fries?�?.

Which if you had fully read the text quoted you would have known.

Brendon Carr,

The world is changing rapidly these days.

France-German alliance is forming EU and it is a matter of time for Britain to join in in full scale, including political union of all member nations. EU can get big, bigger than the US.

Will they always be fair and friendly toward the US? Hussein had strong ties with France and Germany and that gave him boldness to stand up against the US.

I can imagine a scenario where EU planes attacking the continental US with the help of Aussies and Canadians who are closer to Britain than to us. Not now, but twenty years later. Seeing how China chumming up to EU.

A lot of things can happen in twenty years.

Japan? The Rising Sun.

Brendon Carr,

Word, brother! I wish you had said that on my blog!

Kimbob,

It is a Quiotic enterprise. Starting in the summer of 2002 and continuing through today, I started sending articles, images, video links, webpage links, as well as my opinion to a dozen or so major US media outlets. When things were getting really ugly in 2002, I was sending 3 or 4 items a day.

And when the 2002 subway attack and GI captivity occured, I thought surely the dam would finally break, and it did not. The press didn’t cover the orgy of hate for another 3 or 4 months.

(I do note that at different times, I also started faxing articles and links to members of Congress — usually the heads of the committees related to foreign affairs. I still fax an occasional item to Henry Hyde, but now I’m thinking I need to pick a couple others, because he seems to be in the choir too)….

shakuhachi loves what’s going on, all this hatred I mean. We can’t let all this go without shakuhachi ratcheting up the noise right – hell let’s get anti-Korean Japanese involved too. I’m sure they’re having a good laugh as well.

Actually the US may have reached the highest point of history at the Iraq campaign. In next several decades, we have to pay for the war. And, rising cost of gasoline..

I feel the US is back in 1970s. VietNam and the oil crisis. The 70s and 80s were pretty grim time, till the computer came along and made mega bucks for us. We may be heading the same road(downhill) from here.

Meanwhile, other countries are getting stronger financially and militarily. EU, China and now Japan. Japan may succeed in making the first commercial robot and we may have to buy “Made-in-Japan” Aibos further draining wealth and stature from the USA.

We may share the dog house with Russia as the has-beens.

Brendon Carr,

The EU will continue on and only get stronger. It will rule the entire earth for seven years, as prophesied in the Bible.

These are rather clear prophesies in the Book:

1)The Jews will come back to homeland. (1945, Israel)

2) The second Roman Empire will rise up. (=the EU)

3) The powerful man will become the ruler of this Roman Empire(the Anti-Christ).

4) The end of all things is very near.

Nobody is 100% sure that the EU is it, but Bible scholars including me are following EU’s every move. And, I do not know where America fits in. By then, the US may become an insignificant player.

When I heard about this in 1970s, I thought the European union was very unlikely for some time. Maybe for a couple of centuries.

Surprisingly, France and Germany got together and Britain, though reluctantly, joined in. Other “kings”, as they are called in the prophecy, in Europe as well.

Only 30 years later, I am looking at the EU.

The next sign is the rebuilding of the Temple at Jerusalem. When the temple is constructed, it is another major step toward the End.

We all must remember Marmot?��s bosses are Koreans. He?��s not anonymous and so he has to take a middle road.

Plus, he wears a hanbok.

Many of us Koreans continue to suffer under the mistaken notion that the rest of the world is “prejudiced” against them. It’s utter nonsence of course but if we continue to expose our idiodic behavior and irrational attitudes to the world it just might happen.

On a side note to those who believe the Canadians would side with others to attack the US. You neglect 4 key factors:

1) WE earn a nice living off our business with you folks and would be insane to screw that up. Nobody in Canada who has control of any real money would go along with that. As for Europe pushing it on us…it’ll be a “talk to the hand” if there ever was one.

2) WE Canadians talk a lot s**t. Don’t listen to us! A lot of us sound like idiots.
[Personally, it's frustrating being a Canadian. Imagine having to talk with my fellow idiot citizens and then try to convince them about how dumb a lot of what they say is, especially anything related to you guys.]

3) Attack you? With what, I may ask? Rocket propelled frozen bacon? News Flash: WE are an undefended country, just waiting for the Chinese to take us over! Besides, the pathetic excuse for a military we do have (not dising the people manning it, just the irresponsible attitude our government has about national defence) is just too out numbered and out gunned.

4) WE Canadians talk a lot of s**t. I know I already said that, but I cannot emphasize it enough. It’s a side effect from the humongous inferiority complex we have concerning you folks. Just rest assured that some of us are not assholes.

Anyay, I know this isn’t related to the topic but when Baduk brought that up, I nearly choked laughing at the very idea of it. Baduk you are one funny dude.

Waygugin,

Rocket propelled frozen bacon? Ha, ha, good one. Since we are on the subject, does Canada have Army, Navy, Marines? How many planes AirForce have? Are they under American control?

What is official language? Can a soldier answer in French when addressed by a superior in English? Oui? Non?

FINALLY!!!!!!

The U.S. is not going to be Korea’s punching bag on this issue. I wish it would have happened earlier (2002) but at least it is happening now.

virtual wonderer,

I enjoyed reading your post. I agree with most of your thoughts, but I like to point out difference:

1) Rho gained the presidency, not because of anti-American sentiment but Lee HoiChang was a part of former military dictatorship. People hate dictatorship and Lee represented all corruption and haughtiness of military generals. He did not send his kids to military, which proved to be too much for average Koreans to swallow.

2)”The fish stinks from the top”: If Rho resigns(this possibility is talked about in the open right now) due to low approval rating(20% and dropping) and new administration comes in, you will see totally different attitudes in MBC and KBS. I am afraid that they may become too pro-America. Things changes overnight in Korea. People know how to align themselves lickety-split.

Baduk…. I actually like Japan minus Shintaro minus obnoxious vans. I think you are displaying the product of an ancient nationalist education system that ROK inherited from Imperial Japan. For ROK to move forward, Korean kids have to stop wearing that damn prussian korean uniforms (figuratively speaking).

I suggest the following alternative locations for the statue:

2450 Massachusetts Avenue N.W. Washington, D.C. 20008; or

32 Sejong-no, Jongno-gu, Seoul (inside the side entrance).

Marmot, I appreciate the link, and I respectfully disagree with you when you say that this Congress should not have spoken.

This is not just about views of MacArthur or Incheon, or the feng shui merits of having his statue on the hill. It’s about a violent attack on a symbol of America, deliberately scheduled to take place on 9/11. This could only have been meant as a rhetorical statement of approval of the mass murder of Americans. Not all of the anti-American violence in Korea recently has been rhetorical, as you know, and few of those behind it have met with serious punishment during Roh’s presidency. And while it may lack the same symbolic potency, the hateful malice of 9/11/05 was no less vile than that behind a cross burning. By just how much of a margin did we avert a direct confrontation between these violent thugs and returning American veterans?

Every nation has its lunatic fringe, of course, and it’s a sure sign of a true democracy when all facets of it speak freely. But speech and violence are two very different things, and Roh earns this criticism because he’s agnostic about distinguishing the two by imposing hard time for political violence–regardless of party affiliation. Even Roh’s own party can’t quite figure out what it thinks of the Redvests and their methods. In a week when we’ve seen some extraordinary herrenvolk ideology coming from both Koreas, a senior member of the Uri party actually praised the 9/11/05 thugs for their “deep ethnic purity.” Last I’ve heard, no one has stripped him of his leadership post or expelled him from the party. I’m sure no one will seriously consider either idea.

As we have seen all too often, Roh is a weak man who instinctively aims for the middle ground between opposing views, almost without regard for the objective merits of each side’s view. We have seen North Korea play this insight brilliantly during the six-party talks. Congress, it seems, has finally figured this out. It perceives Roh’s blindness to the excess of young left-wing Koreans, perhaps because they are his electoral base. It realizes that Roh will take the support of the United States for granted unless it shifts the debate by making its demands public. It probably does not mind embarrassing Roh, or sending a message to Korean voters that the alliance is terminable at will.

Finally, consider the likely political consequence of that statue coming down. If it does, future congresses are unlikely to authorize the President to send forces to protect South Korea. Alliances are based on common interests and values. That basis is called into question if Roh not only “balances” between its protectors and its historical overlords, but also triangulates between violent radicalism and democratic tolerance. Congress is telling Roh to do our taxpayers the courtesy of telling us whose side he is on, and acting as if he means it.

‘they (will) realize they’ve been set up to fight the chinese.’ baduk makes predictions about japan

right on the money.

Brendon:

Right back at ya – When are YOU going to tell us what you really think? You name the venue. Drinks are on me. Then we can go pollute the gene pool, more than we have already.

Let Y=Country he knows not much about. Let?��s see?�? X X X X X X?�? and Y! Y can someday be Brenden?��s friend! Ooo Ooo.. We can even do it by Linguistics! Let variable A denote closeness to American English. Where Ao=American English, A1=Queen?��s English, A2=Crocodile Dundee?�?

In sum, you’re right. The English language, as proxy for the basket of other social technologies introduced by the British Empire (undergirded by the English common law, which is God’s greatest gift to mankind), is today the signal trait to look for when evaluating whether a place is a desirable place to live (i.e., is it a magnet for immigrants?), a dynamic economy, and a country which can be trusted as a friend to America. English is not a pre-requisite to American friendship (Germany and Japan) but it surely helps.

To the extent that India and South Africa develop in the direction of free markets and social liberty for all their people, these two states will join the community of close American friends and allies. White is not the issue (especially not anymore in America, Australia and Britain — who’s white anymore?), culture is.

As for returning to Aruba U, let’s agree that such is the master plan — minus the course load.

Calling Marmot a house nigger is ludicrous, and that’s saying a lot about an epithet that was ludicrous enough in its original context. If Marmot were not so good at tossing up softballs for the entire IKK and the rest of the bash-osphere to smack around, the rest of the IKK would have to deal with spam and commenters. It’s a thankless job, but it takes a Marmot to do it! But more substantively, and with respect to the Marmot, I, like Joshua, disagree with his realist prerspective on the Korean peninsula. What Marmot argues would not be an issue (because is it our concern, after all?), if his perspective did not mirror academic and political trends among opinion-leaders on this issue. The problem is, that for South Korean politicians, American politicians, and for Marmot, it’s important to argue, that South Korea is a sovereign country, and not a proxy. But, progressives, and other individuals who don’t have anything but a pretension to a thought, attacking the legitimacy of the ROK is essential, to convince the undecided that a unified coomunist Korean state is legitimate.

Does the US Congress have a stake in the MacArthur Statue debate? If The US Congress wants to support the legitimacy of the ROK, then perhaps it’s best not to draw attention to their footprints. But as the country who historically is the ROK’s patron, there really is no choice but to continue to support it. It’s debatable whether the US has any authority to offer Korea other than military bluster. It’s debatable if there’s any non-American in the world willing to give America any ideological kudos. Obviously, though, Congress wants to beleive America is a brand worth selling, and that it can beat Pyongyang’s. Whether Koreans will buy the American line is another matter. The deeper issue is: can the ROK survive without American support?

I’m amazed how few people in English use the title, South Korea. Younger South Koreans certainly do not. Even rarer and less recognizable is the title, ROK. People generally just use Korea and Korean. There is just a serious dearth of national consciousness in South Korea. I blame the educational establishment first and foremost. Aside from the issue of competence in academic subjects, it’s important to know just what successive generations have learned. The recent spate of alternative history films, like Taegukgi, Silmi-do, have exposed the inadequacies of the education system. And, these movies have given South Koreans a reason to denigrate their own country.

I’m concerned, too, that the anti-statue progressives are trying to tar MacArthur for human rights violation committed by the Lee Syng-man regime. There’s a paprallel with the progressive line on Gwangju. The Americans must have green-lighted the murder of dissidents, because they are hegemons. It’s inconceivable that Americans could be naive, arrogant, and powerful. It’s inconceivable American leaders could make mistakes. To be a criminal, one cannot be wrong. Criminals are always wily. Also, South Korean leaders never have to be responsible for their own actions based on their own mistaken perspectives on what Americans are telling them.

The most ludicrous statement coming from progressives, is that without MacArthur, Korea would have been a unified communist country. Cumings made the same argument, that without the US and Soviets, Korea would have been a quirky Yugoslavia. It’s true North Korea is more extreme because it had Soviet support and had to keep it’s citizens from fleeing to the South. Without that, perhaps conditions would be better. But, this all ignores the history of internecine aristocratic feuding running from Choson to now. Power succession in Korea is more likely to be by death and assasination than by choice. The only difference between a unified Korea in 1945 and the two Koreas would have been that the contests between leaders would have been larger and spread over the entire peninsula, instead of confined within two countries. Maybe it would been more intense and not lasted as long. But it would have been a civil war. The Americans had a reason to suppress these embarrassing purges because the media was watching, but the Soviets did not. people are alive in South Korea because the US had a reputation to keep.

I also laugh at the argument that America remains in Korea to maintain it’s hegemoic position in the region. Korea was never an important part of America’s regional or global strategy, as was China or Japan, until the Korean War. That’s how the North was able to attack so easily. Korea, as progressives know, was ignored, from Taft-Katsura to Versailles, during the 30s and after 1945. Korea was never as important for the Truman Administration as say, Greece or Turkey. Funding for Korea was slashed, and many American leaders hoped Lee Syng-man would just go away. It was not until the invasion and Lee’s visit to the US that Americans made a committment. Even then, Washington hoped Lee would go away. There were plenty of Korean leaders in the South Lee killed that the US would have supported. The US just did not have the committment or power to remove him. Korea’s existence is another example ofhow small groups can pressure apathetic leaders to get their agendas fulfilled. South Korea is one example, and then Lee is another.

Marmot deserves credit for his quixotic support for South Korea, but he might be one of a few who would love South Korea. Even South Koreans don’t love their country. But hoping for South Korea to be a real country does not make it sovereign. The progressives are right. South Korea without the US is a dead idea.

“It?��s debatable if there?��s any non-American in the world willing to give America any ideological kudos.”

Since the conversation has turned in this direction, something occured to me on reading this line.

As a working idea —-

Perhaps one of the reasons the kudos aren’t flowing is — America has been so successful in selling itself abroad?

I know that is a brain blower. I hope I can recover some sense of it….

I was watching a Korean grad student talking about China and the US, and the conversation was in part about the potentual for future conflict, and I forget who brought it up or in what context it was brought up, but somehow the idea of China having democratic reform came up, and the Korean said a line that was so typical of him, “They will/might democratize, but it won’t be American democracy!”

And like so many times before, I wanted to grab him by both ears and slam his face into the table.

What is “American” democracy? Does England have a president and a senate and a house of reprsentative or the right to own a gun etched in the constitution? Does France? Australia? Spain?

The world of 2000 is vastly different than the world of 1900. Democracy, capitalism, free(er) markets, western education, idea of freedom and equality, and so on are much more a central part in nations around the world when monarchy, fascism, and despotism were much more common not really so long ago.

And while a Japan or a South Korea or a France might have noticable differences with the United States in each of the characteristics that define America as a nation, the broad facts are still true

?��They will/might democratize, but it won?��t be American democracy!?�?

You’ve touched on a broad theme discussed in my IR classes, but hardly the one I thought would be mentioned here. Ans, no doubt, it’s a good one. So, since I have a final coming, let me take this opportunity to work things out in my head…

Both Huntington and Fukuyama represent two extremes of the debate. Huntington forecloses any hope that capitalism or democratization can keep civilizations, as broadly defined by him, from conflict. Fukuyama has a rather economic and pro-western view of capitalism which has completed the ideological quest for meaning and which for the rest of the non-capitlaist world is just a few conflicts and reforms from realization. In between are commentators like Kaplan and Barber who posit varying degress of accomodation between democracy, culture, and capitalism. Kaplan occupies the Huntington, pessimistic side where the world becomes bifurcated between resource-rich capitalist enclaves and poor, despotic, resource-starven autocracies. Barber is just slightly more optimistic, because e can foresee a accomodations between local communities and capitalism resulting in loose confederations of more or less democratic countries spanning the globe. But then there is the risk of McWorld where capitlaism just runs roughshod over all local cultures and smothers democratic impulses for its capitalist designs. It’s barber’s good and bad picture I find more compelling, alhtough Kaplan is one of the few authors to take the implications of environmental disaster for International relations seriously.

Politically, I think politicians run to the extremes in their pronouncements too much. It’s Huntington for the Koreans and Fukuyama for the Americans. The Koreans would be lucky if Confucian civilization were as monolithic as he thinks it is. Like barber I beleive the Chinese can adapt capitalism to their needs. Capitalism has been very adaptive all its career. But, that requires more leadership from the currently marginalized than the current autocrats are willing to give. Left to itself capitalism will just make Chinese people even more miserable than they already are. How bureaucrats are becoming capitlaist mandarins already is apparent in the way Beijing is realizing how good business creates more tax receipts for the center. And, without leadership, the ecological disaster waiting for China could derail any talk of a Confucian culture as the country is swallowed in dust and water, and not both in the right proportions.

And what do the Koreans have to offer? Roh’s speech to the UN? back in the 30s that would have sounded quaint. Today, for a lawyer, that speech is embarrassing. Roh is still stuck at Huntington.

i?��ll bet you?��re under 39, breden. why not join? there are three thousand koreans out there braver than you. doesn?��t that bother you?

I’m 36 and in fact have already served once, in the Navy for five years from Jan. 1989-Oct. 1993. At that time I served under a medical waiver for a congenital heart condition; it took over a year of active campaigning to get that waiver to allow me to enlist the first time. I have also, for your information, recently been medically evaluated for re-enlistment in the Army National Guard and am at this time not qualified. There are now two reasons — one, the heart is not any better; and two, having slipped on some ice and broken my arm here in Korea five years ago, thanks to poor rehab I now have an orthopedic issue that impairs the functioning of that arm. You’ll be glad to know it hurts most of the day, nulji.

Anyway, I don’t care that Koreans seem to hate their only friend, the United States. Thanks to American protection this is a free country and the people of this free country are certainly free to do so. What bothers me is that the United States subsidizes the hate in the name of a hollow “alliance”, and then the “alliance” obscures real trade-related abuses for which Korea ought to be rebuked in the most forceful way (Jack Ryan reciprocal-trading relations style).

You are an interesting character, nulji. Able to read but not to comprehend.

Reading the replys on this board, I come accross posts often epitomized by Dogbert?��s comments going along the lines of ?��We saved them, but they thank us not,?�? thus revealing that perhaps Dogbert(whom we know to be an honorable and courageous veteran at Chosin) has been in Korea so long that he has developed Korean-Groupthink. Pretty soon he?��ll be saying to Japan, ?��You harmed them, say sorry all the time.?�?

That’s just your wannabe omniscient self putting words in my mouth. I have never been of the mind that Korea has to be eternally grateful. However, I think it not too much to ask that Koreans not stoop to fabricating (or uncritically believing and perpetuating such fabrications) such things as “MacArthur allowed his troops to rape Korean women”. I also find it hypocritical to the extreme when the same Koreans who believe that myth are so focused on “correcting” supposed misunderstandings of Korea by others.

What is your stake in defending such behavior?

God forbid that THE TRUTH hurt that all-important Korean pride…

Dogbert, I may be an wannabee omnicient, but I do find this sentence coming from you rather amusing, “I have never been of the mind that Korea has to be eternally grateful.” I guess I have a rather low reading comprehension having read your many posts on this blog which seem to indicate otherwise.

“However, I think it not too much to ask that Koreans not stoop to fabricating (or uncritically believing and perpetuating such fabrications) such things as ?��MacArthur allowed his troops to rape Korean women?�?.” And I think it’s not so unreasonable for me to ask you to stop using loose english and make it a clear distinction if you are accusing particular Koreans with particular political persuations rather than a blanket term.

“I also find it hypocritical to the extreme when the same Koreans who believe that myth are so focused on ?��correcting?�? supposed misunderstandings of Korea by others.”

You don’t have to beat around the bush. In fact I encourage you to be more specific. And again thank you for illustrating to me how you really think. Your logic= Lots of Koreans who hate DB also defends misunderstandings about Korea. Your tacit implication= VW who is defending misunderstanding of Korea must hate DB. I see tons of “veiled” generalization and allegations that you make. But I suppose I’m just hyper=sensitive. And moreover, that kind of reasoning is poor logic.

“God forbid that THE TRUTH hurt that all-important Korean pride?�?” and yes, God forbid that the truth hurt the all-important egotism of Dogbert who has decided to join my wannabee omniscient camp. Welcome welcome. There are many like us here.

“Though our liberation was the result of the allied victory, it was also the fruit of our independence movement, which steadly expanded to resist Japanese aggression.”

This is not my period of study, but I seem to remember this is basically a lie.

I can’t recall off the top of my head what the situation in Manchuria was like – if it paralleled that inside Korea, but unless my memory has failed, I think the resistance movement in the late 30s through 40s was successfully curatiled by the Japanese authorities. I thought the March 1st Movement was the highlight of resistance in country, and in the 1920s Korea pushed for some changes/the Japanese brought some reforms, but as the war period grew and then happened 2 things happened — one year hear about – one you don’t : 1. The Japanese authorities cracked down in a harsher, more systematic, prolonged, and successful manner. 2. A certain amount of Korean society decided to knuckle under and support the great cause of the East Asian ??�?�� against the western imperialists.

My memory is too vague right now on what was going on in Manchuria and the Russian far east, but what I seem to recall is that the resistance movement also lost ground in this period — due to war attrition and fragmentation within the Korean leadership.

GBevers,

People like you start Anti-Americanism in Korea. The US military is a guest to Korea, never the master. Yet, some like you want to order Koreans aroud like house servants. Koreans, especially the youth, hate this treatment. They like to be treated as equals. Equal to you.

The US military in Korea is not protecting Koreans. They are protecting the US interest in the region. (Or, is it the Japanese bribing the US politicians?) And, get military training in a pseudo-battle situation. That is all. If you buy into a lie that somehow the US LOVE Koreans so much so that she sends troops to protect these “Chinese+Mongolians”, then you are so gullible.

I am of the opinion that Korea owes nothing to the US and vice versa. Yet, like a nagging wife, you are asking for Koreans to pay for past history. Why don’t you concentrate on the present relationship rather than the past?

Baduk,

I am not asking Koreans “to pay for past history.” In fact, I wish Koreans would stop asking others to pay for past history. I only want Koreans to be honest about their history.

How am I or any other American ordering Koreans around? Asking Koreans to honor their treaty commitments is not ordering Koreans around. And the US military is here at the invitation of Korea, so anytime Korea feels like she is being ordered around, she can ask them to leave.

So it is the Koreans who are getting unequal treatment? Not the Americans? Koreans break into the US Chamber of Commerce and destroy property, but are not prosecuted. Koreans attack US soldiers and kidnap one, but are not prosecuted. Koreans transpass on US facilities, but are not punished. And why does it seem that in almost every incident that involve a Korean and an American it is the American’s fault or else the American gets little or no justice?

The US-Korea SOFA agreement is Korean law. The US military abides by the agreement; it is Korea that always seems to be trying to sidestep it. If Koreans say that the SOFA agreement is unfair, then they are saying that Korean law is unfair.

I have heard so much about unfair treaties in Korea that I wonder if Korea has ever entered into a treaty that Koreans consider fair? I wonder if Koreans would consider her SOFA agreements with other countries, where she maintains 100-percent jurisdiction, fair?

Baduk: “Korean War was a Korean War first, with other nations coming to help.”

Gerry: Well, thank you for admitting that, at least. There are a lot of Korean “youth” who would disagree with you.

“Free ride? So, Koreans are freeloading off American tax payers, huh? I am ashamed that you are a Korean. Have some pride!”

I only can feel pride when I have something to be proud of. Just racial heritage isn’t enough for me to be proud. But Korea’s anti-Americanism is something I definitely I feel ashamed of. I know I’m not the only one. Even yourself, I’m pretty sure you are ashamed of what’s going on in Korea right now (even if you don’t want to admit it).

“Americans are not fools. There are reasons for Americans to stay in the peninsula. Mutual defense treaty? You can have one soldier stationed in Korea and still fulfill the loose terms of the treaty. The US has reasons; one of them is the training of soldiers.”

You know, you’re not entirely wrong here, but you’re not entirely right either. Yes, the United States looks out for itself and her interests. But who fed the starving S.Koreans after the Korean War with massive food assistance? Who took in the thousands of helpless orphans (and still continue to do so when Koreans themselves refuse to adopt them)? Who gave S.Korea massive economic aid after the Korean War? Who opened up their huge consumer market with wide open arms so that Koreans can build a miracle on the Han river? Who gave all the good favorable trade terms to Korean companies so that they can sell their goods while Korea shut their market? Whose citizens built universities, hospitals, churches, and orphanages for Koreans? What possible benefits did they try to get out of doing all this? Can you tell us? What ashamed of is that so many Koreans have such short memory.

“I like to steer Korea into freer market society full of economic freedom and equality. And, America helps in this quest. Therefore, I am pro-American. Not for the archaic idea of gratitude toward what America has done for Korea.”

The concept of gratitude is not archaic. Take Israel for instance. They are smart enough that they will never bite the hand that feeds them. Korea is in a similiar position with Israel vis a vie the United States. But yet, look how much trouble Korea is, while the alliance between Israel and the U.S has never been in doubt. As you have correctly pointed out, the U.S stays in Korea because of self interest. But day by day, the reasons and benefits that the U.S should stay in Korea are being eliminated one by one. What is the U.S getting out of Korea that they should stay in Korea for? Cooperation to contain N.Korean nukes? No. Free training grounds? No, the areas for the US troops to train are shrinking because the Koreans don’t want them anywhere. For trade? No. Korea’s full access to the U.S. market versus restricted access to the Korean market. With the N.Korean nuke uncooperation from the S.Koreans, what possible benefit does the US get out of spending billions of dollars for the defense of S. Korea? Investors don’t usually invest money in a company or a country if there are no returns.

“Freedom came when SK soldiers fought and died during Korean War. Americans and others helped in defending the land. You seemed to say Americans are the only ones paid for Korean freedom.”

Nope that’s not what I said at all. Korean youth today can’t see the entire forest, only one tree. Yes, bad things happened in the war. But if they had their way, there wouldl have been no war, no US coming to the aid of S.Korea. They just would have laid down their arms, hug the advancing N.Korean troops, avoided casualties, and be united with North Korea. SK soldiers fought and died during the Korean War, but their deaths would not have been enough to save S.Korea. Americans and others not just helped. They played an integral role in making sure S.Korea didn’t become a part of Kim Il Sung’s mass cult. Without the U.S, those SK soldiers who died would have all died in vain.

“Korean leadership will get better. Don?��t trash all Koreans. You seemed to have issues about your own identity. Bad things you say about Koreans will come back to hurt you. ”

You keep ‘promising’ Korean leadership will get better. But you are in no position nor do you have that right to make such lofty promises. What makes us all skeptical is that South Korean education system has failed. That is something that will be extremely difficult to overcome.

A couple of points:

1) Kimbob wrote:

“But yet, look how much trouble Korea is, while the alliance between Israel and the U.S has never been in doubt..”

I’m about 99% certain that if you look carefully you will find that there is no formal treaty of alliance between the US and Israel. The ROK does have one with the US (Mutual Defense Treaty of 1950? can’t remember the exact date now).

(The Marmot blogged about the exact language of the MDT with ROK a while back. The text is on-line somewhere (probably several places), I didn’t capture a link though).

A big part of why there is no US treaty with Israel is that Israel doesn’t want one! Israel prefers to depend only on herself and not be beholden to any ally.

It’s true that the US and Isreal are “informal” allies: but, you won’t find any US troops going to Israel for “maneuvers” — not now, not in the past, and probably not in the future. (In the way, for example, that the US does when it sends troops to ROK once a year for “Team Spirit”).

2) Also, if US Army generals spoke up here I don’t think they would say that having troops in Korea permanently is a “benefit” in terms of training.

It’d be better for “training” at this point if we could station ground troops in a place where they can drive their heavy vehicles without fear of having accidents on crowded Korean roads. And in areas with wide freedom of maneuver (where they won’t damage some other country’s roads and agricultural fields, or upset foreign nationals with loud engine noise and the blast noise from aircraft bombs and artillery rounds).

Also, where the troops can go “offpost” after hours without having to worry about getting into trouble — trouble that at any time can blow up into an international incident.

Where is such a place? Why back in the USA of course.

Local US civilian governments (city, county and state) have their own “SOFAs” with the US military legal system, and they somehow manage to deal with the inevitable incidents that happen without the locals turning out in mass to demonstrate against US military garrisons.

Makes life for the military chain of command a lot easier.

Paul H, when I say similiarity of Korea and Israel vis a vie the United States, I mean both economically and militarily. There are no American troops in Israel, but Israel is America’s number one receipient of economic aid. Conversly, S.Korea receives American military aid in the form of 28,000 American troops stationed in S.Korea. Both countries have reaped the fruits of being friends with the United States over the decades. Both rely on the US for moral support. Both face annilation for being surrounded by enemy, with only the US standing behind. That’s what I meant.

You cannot ask the VietNamese to pay for all services they have got, or ask the Iraqi to pay for Iraq campaign.

That will be too hypocritical.

All three actions including the Korean War had to do with American national security and interests. Denying that and keep insisting the US is good country that “keeps on giving for no apparent reason” is illogical.

Only a naive and immature person, like somebody in a one-horse town, will believe that.

For the “record”, such as it is. I don’t think that Korea or its citizens need to explicitly demonstrate gratitude for the U.N.-led action to fight North Korea almost sixty years ago. I don’t even think Korea or its citizens need to continue to demonstrate gratitude to the U.S. and its allies for defeating Japan in World War II, thereby freeing Korea from Japanese domination. I do think that Korea and its citizens owe it to us to refrain from creating, spreading, and believing malicious lies about those times and events, as well as subsequent ones.

I think that’s a reasonable position. You are free to disagree.

I would characterize the relationship as more a case where Korea reaches multiple orgasam and then tells the US to go get its own elsewhere.

Seriously, I expect gratitude from Korea, but I only get pissy about the huge amount of disdain that we get instead. For me, Korea proved itself in the Vietnam War whatever other elements were involved, but now, I’d be happy with simple neutrality from Korean society as a whole…

5% is highly incorrect. It fits the Inchon MacArthur statue issue, but concerning many other issues and the overall alliance, the vast majority of Koreans (below the age of 65) view the US relationship as an inoperable cancer.

I do believe there are considerable mutual interests. If you don’t, that is your opinion.

At least, the Pentagon and the president Bush agree with me. That is why the troops are still in Korea.

You guys are misled by the publicity department that Koreans ?��owe?�? to the US. The fact is that,if Korea has no value to the US national security objective and national interest, the troops will leave tomorrow no matter how many Koreans protest, beg, plead and pay.

Thanks to your upbringing, you overlook the actual reason US Forces are still in Korea — to Americans, a promise is a serious thing, a sacred bond. Koreans don’t understand the emphasis Americans put on honor and decency, fair play and generosity. US Forces are still in Korea because in 1950, America made a promise to defend the South against the North. And that’s it. All the other considerations — training grounds, geopolitical balancing arguments, etc. — those are ancillary to the promise.

Thanks to your upbringing, you overlook the actual reason US Forces are still in Korea ?�� to Americans, a promise is a serious thing, a sacred bond. Koreans don?��t understand the emphasis Americans put on honor and decency, fair play and generosity. US Forces are still in Korea because in 1950, America made a promise to defend the South against the North. And that?��s it. All the other considerations ?�� training grounds, geopolitical balancing arguments, etc. ?�� those are ancillary to the promise.

Well said again, Brendon.

If funny how Koreans tend to project their mercenary motives on to other people that think on a higher plane.

Baduk, South Korea is the NO. 1 obstacle in dealing with the NK problem. Without SK, the US would be free to launch air strikes against the NK nuclear reactors, but cannot because Seoul is within artillery range of the NK army. I cant think of a single reason why even one more American soldiers life should be spent on Korea. A few years down the track Korea will dissolve the alliance and tell then Americans to hit the road anyway. They are just waiting for the right moment.

I should stop discussing military matters with the civilians or with the enlisted, who have no idea. All I can say that president Bush agrees with me.

Baduk’s argument goes out the window when we consider that the US continues to draw down the number of troops in Korea. Obviously the US thinks that the mutual benefits are not there anymore (or not worth the hassles) otherwise why would they want to gradually decrease the troop level? I’ve been trying to tell Baduk this, but he still doesn’t get it. Look at the trend, the picture is clear. We’re not in the 1970′s. Baduk doesn’t surprise me because whenever I discuss this kind of issues with Koreans, the reactions are exactly like Baduk’s – they just can’t believe that the US will just pick up and go. They also have a hard time understanding America putting high importance on signed treaties and promises (and that’s the only single biggest reason why the US still continues to have troops in Korea). Koreans don’t understand this because it’s natural to them to break signed contracts and promises whenever they serve out the purposes, or when the promises don’t suit them anymore. It’s a different cultural thought process that turns all this into a dangerous miscalculation by the Korean government and the acadamia who just can’t believe the US will disengage from Korea.

Korean people’s trust about America was shaken when they saw the US just giving up in VietNam. It was again shaken to the core, when the US switched allegiance about Taiwan just to sell CocaCola to Mainland china. The switch happened literally overnight.

America has very bad record in Asia. When the US decide to pull out of Korea all together, Koreans, Taiwanese and even Japanese will think differently about the US.

It is all about commitment.

Baduk bleats:Always remember three times more casulties to take a land position away from the enemy.

Forgive me, Admiral, for my ignorance, but how does this three-times rule apply in light of the blitzkriegs in Afghanistan and Iraq? In Iraq, the initial six weeks of invasion and “major combat” resulted in 138 killed in action and 542 wounded. Three times those rates would still be pretty exceptional. Perhaps there has been a revolution in military affairs while you’ve been out, Admiral.

Or do you think the Korean People’s Army is more motivated and resilient than the Iraqi Army? Myself, I expect the KPA to be every bit as demoralized and brittle as the Iraqi Army, if not more so.

My mother, who were educated under the Japanese, thinks the Japanese are most moral people in the world. She insist that the Japanese do not lie, steal, cheat or break a promise. Even more virtuous people than white people.

Koreans are often baffled why anyone would prefer the Japanese to the Koreans in any capacity. In my own view, this is because of the Korean blind spot for honesty. It’s not important here, and therefore it’s hard for Koreans to understand why it would be important anywhere. And yet, it is. Especially to Americans.

As a professional who has experience with Japanese clients and with Korean clients, as well as with the resolution of disputes involving Japanese parties, Korean parties, or Western parties, I can attest to the fact that there is a marked difference between the Japanese and the Koreans in respect of performance of contracts and general trustworthiness. In other words, these two peoples view the meaning of “promise” quite differently. One would be hard-pressed, outside Korea, to find anyone in the world who prefers Koreans as commercial counterparts — because of their general attitude toward contract and often shameless penchant for fraud.

Depending on your definition of “morality”, then, the Japanese may indeed be more moral than Koreans. If morality contains a component of honesty and trustworthiness to outsiders, that is. The Korean brand of morality does not, at least from the perspective of an outside observer. My own experience is that within an “in-group” (in my case, our firm), Koreans are honest, faithful, and dependable. Our firm’s partners are honest to the point of seeking approval on the brand of copier paper we buy.

Korean social attitudes toward “outsiders”, however, are well known. Outsiders do not exist, are not fully human, and do not merit any consideration at all. Metaphorical knives are always ready to figuratively cut the throat of an outsider should he let his guard down.

The problem for Western businessmen and businesses is that skin tone and language generally reserve “outsider” status forever. One has to always be on guard against commercial counterparties and against one’s own employees, should they decide to define the tribe not as “Sample Company Ltd.” but as “finance department” or “us Koreans”. The foreign country manager or line manager dumped into a Korean organization is constantly being undermined. And we all know about embezzlement. Thus, it’s exhausting to be in business with Koreans.

Which is why there is such a need for business advisors such as foreign lawyers.

Anyone care to start a pool with me as to how long these two side can go at eachother? My money is on 140 replies, plus or minus 2. I’ll place a 10,000 Won bet.

If nobody is exactly right the closest person to the actual number will take the pot. In the event of the difference between two people being equal, the two parties will determine the winner by a match of rock,scissor, paper.

Any other takers?

My own experience is that within an ?��in-group?�? (in my case, our firm), Koreans are honest, faithful, and dependable. Our firm?��s partners are honest to the point of seeking approval on the brand of copier paper we buy.

Korean social attitudes toward ?��outsiders?�?, however, are well known. Outsiders do not exist, are not fully human, and do not merit any consideration at all.This is a very good observation. The simplest way I would summarize this phenomenon would be “clanishness.”

It’s not that outsiders are not “fully human” or “do not merit any consideration” among Koreans. It is that what the sociologists call “the primary group” (family, close friends, school alumni) matters the most in Korean society. As outsiders are potential competitors, they are “allies” to the extent they serve a purpose, that of elevating the status and well-being of the primary group.

It is actually a typical tribalistic behavior. I have seen this from other tribalistic societies where promises within the primary group (or within a tribe) are held by blood oaths and scrupulously kept, but outsiders are routinely made use of or even betrayed for mere scraps. The problem for Western businessmen and businesses is that skin tone and language generally reserve ?��outsider?�? status forever.This is “generally” the case, but not always true. While Koreans, particularly uneducated Koreans, can be highly xenophobic, some Koreans take much apparent delight and pride from acquaintainting with foreigners who attempt to assimilate into Korean life.

Obviously, as “late” arrivals, foreigners face “high barrier to entry” (so to speak) into the inner sanctum of Korean primary groups. But it’s been done, and is possible if difficult.

As for Japan, while it is publicly more open to foreigners, and its legal and business practices more transparent for Westerners, Japanese primary groups aren’t that easy to penetrate for outsiders either (as my BIL can attest).

It is anecdotally interesting to me that I, who grew up in Korea, often find myself more at ease in Japan while my BIL, who married a Japanese woman, have three mixed children and live in Japan on a permanent basis, finds Koreans — according to his words — “more earthy, warmer and more welcoming than Japanese.”

“Grass is greener on the other side,” perhaps.

post 118, Guns and Butters

I was referring to that other GB, gerry beavers

The Bikini University Bar? The BIKINI University Bar? Where is that exactly?